Abstract

Objectives

While welfarist economics (WE) methods rely wholly on individuals' valuations, extra-welfarist (EW) methods seek alternative measures of value. Major reviews of the EW literature conclude that EW studies almost universally replace “utility” with “health” as the maximand. This analysis seeks to understand what conclusions are necessary and sufficient to make EW and WE methods concurrent and discusses implications for measuring social value.

Methods

Using standard WE methods, I demonstrate that EW is equivalent to WE with 2 key restrictions—individuals have constant returns to health in producing utility and health budgets are fixed. Fixing budgets removes a key WE step, determining the marginal rate of substitution between consumption and health, the willingness to pay for health gains.

Results

Because EW methods equate with WE with these 2 restrictions, I show how formal models to construct aggregated social welfare functions (SWFs) in WE frameworks lead directly to SWF models using EW models of value. I also show that, in fixed-budget health systems, when SWFs place different values for improving health of different subpopulations, aggregate health output fails as a SWF criterion. I demonstrate how different societal values can and should enter EW SWF models using WE criteria. I also discuss the implications when either of these key restrictions does not properly represent people's preferences.

Conclusions

Once EW methods are shown to be a restricted form of WE methods, those WE methods can illuminate how best to measure SWFs in EW environments.